District Enforcement Mooring folk

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

Do the EA have powers to remove unregistered or unlicensed boats? 

 

It's an interesting question. 

 

If they do, why haven't they lifted out the Reading piss-takers? If the don't, why not? something to do with the PRN perhaps? 

 

But if they don't have such powers, I'm curious as to why there are not hundreds or thousands of unlicenced piss-takers on the Thames.

 

 

[NewCanalBoy]

Even if they do have the powers, how much does it cost per boat to remove them ?

Get it towed somewhere, lifted out, what then ? Disposed of somewhere, crushed ?

Probably a few grand per boat to dispose of. Will cost a LOT of money which they probably haven't got ?

[NewCanalBoy]

Maybe just can't risk the bad press if they remove a boat and it's somebody's home ? Even if it's not registered/ insured,etc, they've made somebody homeless.

Imagine the uproar ?

People will claim they have mental health issues (legitimate or not) so become untouchable.

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, NewCanalBoy said:

Maybe just can't risk the bad press if they remove a boat and it's somebody's home ? Even if it's not registered/ insured,etc, they've made somebody homeless.

Imagine the uproar ?

People will claim they have mental health issues (legitimate or not) so become untouchable.

 

 

 

Ah yes, that old chestnut. 

 

People who are a bit hard up, or ill, or might become ill if made to comply with the law and pay for a normal license, insurance, BSS etc are getting excused by the EA, you reckon? Hence the permanent overstayers at Tesco? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by MtB
Finesse the point.

[Jess--]

I think the overstayers at Reading get wind of when enforcement is happening and pop round the corner onto the K&A so that they aren't on EA waters.

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

16 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

I think the overstayers at Reading get wind of when enforcement is happening and pop round the corner onto the K&A so that they aren't on EA waters.

 

 

 

Actually I think it is EA as far as High Bridge Wharf, just before the traffic lights, but the EA seem to ignore that are leave it to the riparian owners to try to move such boats on.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Actually I think it is EA as far as High Bridge Wharf, just before the traffic lights, but the EA seem to ignore that are leave it to the riparian owners to try to move such boats on.

 

 

Yes I think so too. When I moored in T&K many years ago I'd worked out I could go that far up fully legitimately on my EA license. Trips to Bel and the dragon and round the prison loop were fine.

 

I've an idea the thriving community of freeloaders moored in the prison loop by the old Toys R Us site have now been moved on which strikes me as odd, given that must have been done by the EA too, yet they can't deal with the Tesco overstayers. 

 

We still haven't established if the EA actually have powers to lift out and remove unlicensed boats....

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

I've an idea the thriving community of freeloaders moored in the prison loop by the old Toys R Us site have now been moved on which strikes me as odd, given that must have been done by the EA too, yet they can't deal with the Tesco overstayers. 

 

I think that length of "moorings" were owned by the developer who built the sheds and improved the waterside. They seemed little interested in who or what moored there. But now the massive redevelopment is underway for housing they seemes to have fenced off those moorings and cleared the boats off as well. I think that genuine boaters can write those moorings off now it will all be residential

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, NewCanalBoy said:

Maybe just can't risk the bad press if they remove a boat and it's somebody's home ? Even if it's not registered/ insured,etc, they've made somebody homeless.

Imagine the uproar ?

People will claim they have mental health issues (legitimate or not) so become untouchable.

 

Just like with CRT on the K&A at the moment 

[ditchcrawler]

12 hours ago, Alway Swilby said:

Do the EA have powers to remove unregistered or unlicensed boats? 

Yes, here are the details  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boat_removal_protocol

12 hours ago, Alway Swilby said:

Do the EA have powers to remove unregistered or unlicensed boats? 

Yes, here are the details  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boat_removal_protocol

[matty40s]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

We still haven't established if the EA actually have powers to lift out and remove unlicensed boats....

 

 

It takes time, but they certainly do on the Nene

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

It takes time, but they certainly do on the Nene

 

 

It certainly does. I've seen the boat 'Meet on the Ledge" CMing at Tesco for at least 20 years. 

[GUMPY]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It certainly does. I've seen the boat 'Meet on the Ledge" CMing at Tesco for at least 20 years. 

It may be registered (licensed) EA only remove unregistered boats not CMers

[MtB]

9 hours ago, Loddon said:

It may be registered (licensed) EA only remove unregistered boats not CMers

 

 

True, you're right it might well be licensed with the EA, if fact the boat needs to be given it appears to spend (or used to - I've not been there far a while now) most of its time on the Tesco moorings.

 

So are we saying the EA are only concerned with licensing, and no matter how many fingers an EA-licensed boat sticks up at District Enforcement, DE are impotent to take any effective steps to move a boat on and EA decline to get involved? 

 

Are there any circumstances under which EA can (or will) refuse a license? 

 

I'm just keen to get to understand what is going on and how it works. I'm imagining EA want a boat to be licensed, but any mooring dispute is nothing to do with them and a private matter between the boat(er) and the land owner. And this seems to be the difference. With the canals CRT are the licensing body and also land owner, but on the river, the licensing body and the land owner are different. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by MtB
Finesse the point.

[Tony Brooks]

Basically the right to moor on the majority of the Thames is held by the riparian owners, not the EA. I expect if a boat tried to CM on an EA controlled mooring the EA could act, but who is the riparian owner of the Tesco mooring? It might be Tesco, it might be a developer if Tesco rents the store, it might be the council, but I suspect it is not the council. I can't see Tesco or a developer worrying about CMers as long as they are any reputational damage they are doing costs less than trying to remove them.

 

District Enforcement is only a contractor working for the riparian owner to control the mooring. If effective action costs more than their fees I can't see District Enforcement tackling the difficult cases, there are far easier ways of extorting money from the rule keepers.

[GUMPY]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

Are there any circumstances under which EA can (or will) refuse a license? 

Boats are not licenced on EA waters as there is a PRN you have to have a registration, which I believe cannot be refused or revoked unlike wot cart do.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

Boats are not licenced on EA waters as there is a PRN you have to have a registration, which I believe cannot be refused or revoked unlike wot cart do.

 

 

It is the same on "C&RT" rivers - ie the River Trent - just ask Tony.

 

The 'Rivers Licence that C&RT issue is simply a registration (under the waterways act) and they incorrectly call it a licence so they can revoke it if boaters look at them the wrong way.

 

The Rivers Registration is also not subject to VAT (and C&RT know it, there are internal emails in the public domain where they are discussing it) whilst Licences are subject to VAT

 

If only C&RT would act in an honest manner they may get more support from boaters.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

True, you're right it might well be licensed with the EA, if fact the boat needs to be given it appears to spend (or used to - I've not been there far a while now) most of its time on the Tesco moorings.

 

So are we saying the EA are only concerned with licensing, and no matter how many fingers an EA-licensed boat sticks up at District Enforcement, DE are impotent to take any effective steps to move a boat on and EA decline to get involved? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case DE are not working for the EA but for Reading DC so why would EA take action. the boat is not moored on their land.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

In this case DE are not working for the EA but for Reading DC so why would EA take action. the boat is not moored on their land.

 

Because they are permanently obstructing the same bit of water, perhaps? 

 

DO you always answer a question with a question?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

Because they are permanently obstructing the same bit of water, perhaps? 

 

Does the EA have the same "we can sieze your boat if you cause an obstruction" powers as C&RT, or, can they only take action in the event of a failure to register the boat ?

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Does the EA have the same "we can sieze your boat if you cause an obstruction" powers as C&RT, or, can they only take action in the event of a failure to register the boat ?

 

Dunno. Another good question to add to the list.

 

This is what I was driving at in my previous question in response to DC's question in response to my preceding question....

[ditchcrawler]

30 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Because they are permanently obstructing the same bit of water, perhaps? 

 

DO you always answer a question with a question?

 

I think they could be hard to prove a case when you consider how wide the river is there. Yes they are obstructing the bit of water near the moorings, but every boat moored long term on the river does that when moored to their own bit of bank

[Steilsteven]

5 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Because they are permanently obstructing the same bit of water, perhaps? 

 

DO you always answer a question with a question?

 

EA are only concerned with obstruction of the navigation, ie the channel.

Boats moored at a recognised mooring place, whether registered or not, cannot be considered to be obstructing navigation.

A boat being unregistered on the Thames is a criminal offence but ( as far as I'm aware ) the EA staff have no power of arrest so can only issue a summons. In order to do so they would need a name and address. 

Reading Borough Council is the riparian owner of the moorings outside Tesco and DE act on their behalf. 

Many years ago (pre DE's involvement) RBC took legal action against a number of boaters who had been squatting at the moorings, but when it came to the day when the case was to be presented to the court none of the said boaters turned up so the action was abandoned. Not long afterwards the DE signs started to appear.

 

Keith